Lords Sitting of 8 February 1819

WESTMINSTER HUSTINGS BILL.
The Earl of Lauderdalepresented a Petition from certain Electors of Westminster against this bill. It was in substance the same as the one presented to the House of Commons by sir Francis Burdett, [see p. 208] Lord Sidmouth having moved the order of the day for the second reading of the bill,
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, he was surprised that the noble secretary of state should content himself with merely moving the second reading of this bill, and
[336
seem to consider it unnecessary to say a word upon a measure of so extraordinary a nature, perhaps the only measure of the same kind ever introduced into that house. He wished to call their lordships attention to the circumstance, that this bill was proposed to be passed at a time when persons had actually assumed the character. of candidates, and was, therefore, with respect to them, an ex post facto law. Besides, what necessity was there for such a measure? Had not the high bailiff the means of indemnifying himself by an action at common law? That there was such a remedy, had already been decided. In the action, assumpsit, brought by the high bailiff against sir Francis Burdett, the late lord Ellenborough gave it as his opinion, that a candidate who had received the use of the hustings was liable for his share of the expense. The question was afterwards solemnly argued, on a motion for a new trial, when the same opinion was given by Mr. Justice Le Blanc, and concurred in by the other judges. The late Mr. Clifford supported a very learned argument in favour of the non-liability of the candidate. If the noble lord thought that argument well founded, there might be a reason for introducing this bill; but all the judges were of quite a different opinion, and stated it to be the law, that a candidate who benefitted by the use of the hustings was liable to the expense. This being the state of the law, he should be glad to know what reasonable motive could be assigned for the interference of that House, after the writ for a new election for Westminster had been issued, and persons of course stood in the situation of candidates. The measure could only be introduced for the purpose of subjecting such persons to expenses, to which they could not be liable by an action at common law. On this ground he regarded the measure as possessing all the character of an ex post facto law, and on that ground he trusted their lordships would proceed no farther with it.
Lord Sidmouthsaid, that with the construction of the present bill he had had no concern; but the bill which was for reviving and continuing an act of the 51st of the king, having, after much consideration, passed the other House, a representation was made to him, showing the expediency of such a measure; and bath as high steward of Westminster and as secretary of state, he felt himself bound to give the bill his support. He now pro-

337
posed the second reading; and their lord-ships had to consider, first, whether it was not proper that accommodation for voting should be provided in Westminster; secondly, by whom that accommodation ought to Be provided; and, thirdly, who ought to defray the expense. Under all these points of view, he thought they could not but agree to the present bill. It would be recollected, that in the year 1811, after lord Ellenborough had given the opinion alluded to by the noble earl, a bill was introduced and passed, for extending to Westminster the act of the late king, by which the sheriffs of counties are obliged to provide hustings, poll-clerks, &c. for elections [Here, on the motion of the noble lord, the clerk read the act in question—the 51st of the king, chap. 6]. The noble lord then proceeded, and observed, that this act, which expired in 1813, was renewed for six years, and had again expired on the first of January last. The question was, with regard to the electors of Westminster, whether it was necessary that hustings should be erected, and other conveniences provided; if so, by whom they should be provided, and who was to pay the expenses of such arrangements? If this bill were not passed, all that the high bailiff was compellable by law to do with regard to an election was (and he spoke advisedly, such being the opinion of eminent lawyers), to attend himself, with a single clerk, to take the poll. Now, their lordships knew from melancholy experience, that riots frequently took place at elections for Westminster; and could they imagine, that when the high bailiff, attending thus with a single clerk, could not take the votes of more than a fourteenth part of the pensions entitled to the elective franchise for Westminster, which amounted to at least 14,000, there would not be a much greater tendency to riot than under the system upon which the elections had been hitherto Carried on? The mere anxiety of the electors to obtain a priority at the poll, in order that they might not be deprived of the exercise of their franchise, must have a direct tendency to excite riot and confusion. But was it of no light importance that a large majority of the electors of Westminster should be absolutely deprived of the means of exercising their elective franchise?—and yet, as he had already stated, such must be the case if this bill was not passed. With regard to what had been said by the noble earl re-
[338
specting the decision in 1808, he believed he was quite correct in stating that that decision did not turn upon the point stated by the noble earl, but upon this, that the attendance of an agent of sir Francis Burdett upon the hustings, was considered as an implied acceptance of the accommodation provided by the high bailiff for his share of the expenses, of which therefore sir Francis Burdett was made liable. But it should not be forgotten, that when a bill similar to the present, was in that House in 1811 and 1813, and which did not pass sub silentio, his noble friend (lord Ellenborough), now no more, in whom were united the most eminent knowledge of the law, with the greatest firmness and integrity, was then a member of the House, and saw no reason whatever, arising out of the decision in 1808, against the passing of the bill. The present bill, which was merely to revive and continue one that expired five weeks ago, he saw no reason to object to, on the ground of its being ex post facto, whilst the necessity for a measure extending the same provisions to the returning officer of Westminster, where the electors were so numerous, as to the returning officers of counties was so obvious, that he could not hesitate in moving the second reading of the bill.
The Earl of Lauderdalecontended, that the noble secretary of state had taken all erroneous view of the law. He seemed to be of opinion, that the high bailiff was only obliged to provide a single clerk to assist him in taking the poll. Such, however, was not the fact. Lord Ellenborough had laid it clearly down as the law, that the returning officer was bound to provide due accommodation for the election, and that the candidates, for whose benefit that accommodation was provided, must defray the expenses. Nothing could be more groundless than the analogy the noble lord had attempted to establish between sheriffs of counties and the high bailiff of Westminster. The office which the sheriff held was imposed upon him, while the high bailiff, on the contrary, not only took the burthen on himself voluntarily, but purchased his office from the dean and chapter of Westminster. The operation of this bill, if it should become a permanent law, would therefore, merely be that of raising the money value of the office, and enabling the dean and chapter to get a better price when it came again into the market. The noble lord spoke

339
of disorders to be apprehended from a Westminster election; but he who had in the course of his life had a good deal of experience in scenes of that sort, had always found that measure which was the chief object of this bill to be a principal cause of tumult. Of this he was certain, that the greatest disorders he had ever seen at these elections, were occasioned by the crowd endeavouring to get possession of those hustings, for the erection of which the noble lord expressed so much anxiety.
The House divided: Contents, 13; Not Contents, 4. The bill was then read a second time.

COTTON FACTORIES.
Lord Kenyonpresented a petition from certain persons concerned in the cotton factories at Stock-port, praying that a bill similar to that proposed last session, for limiting the hours of the labour of children, might be introduced and passed.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, he had been informed, that many of the individuals who had signed petitions for the object prayed for by this, had been persuaded so to do, in consequence of being told that if the bill passed they would get more money for their labour, and have to work fewer hours than they now did.
Lord Kenyansaid, he had no reason to suppose that any persons had signed this petition under the impression described by the noble earl. He had heard assertions of undue means having been resorted to for obtaining signatures, but he was not aware of any false representations having been employed to procure signatures to the petitions he presented, and regarded the assertions to that effect as unfounded. He had now to present a petition from persons of sixteen years of age and upwards, employed in the cotton manufactories of Holywell, in Flintshire. The object of this petition was the same as the last.
The Earl of Lauderdalewished to state, with respect to this petition, some facts which might, if their lordships pleased, be supported by affidavits. He was informed that a person from Stockport had arrived at Holywell, bringing with him a letter to some of the people employed there, and a copy of a petition, in terms similar to that presented, for them to sign: this stranger assembled the people in a public-house, and informed them that the petition was for a law which would
[340
greatly benefit them if it should pass, as they would then have to labour less, and yet would be paid more wages than they now received. The petition was stated to be from persons of sixteen years of age and upwards, but he was assured that it had been signed by at least one hundred boys and girls under that age. The proceeding had been a source of great vexation in the neighbourhood. Before this stranger appeared, the people in the works were contented and happy, but after this transaction they became troublesome and refractory.
Lord Kenyanthought the noble earl must have been deceived by the information he had received on this subject. The representations of the transaction which had been made to himself, from what he considered good authority, were of a very different nature.
The Bishop of Chesterpresented a petition, signed by the clergy of the established church, the dissenting clergy, medical persons, manufacturers, shopkeepers, and other inhabitants of Bolton-le-Moors, to the number of 5,226, praying, like the preceding petitions, for the limitation of the labour of children.
The Earl of Lauderdalecould not help reminding their lordships, who might be disposed to lay some stress on the circumstance of the petitions being signed by medical persons, of what had occurred last session, with regard to petitions similarly signed, Some of the medical persons who had signed the petitions, on being examined before the committee of last session, had declared, that on inspecting the manufactories they found the children employed in them, generally speaking, in better health than was usual for children of their age. They were of course asked what had induced them to sign the petitions. They answered, that they had been induced to sign them by the representations of friends; but that now, since they had had the opportunity of a personal examination of the children, they would sign no more. This fact accounted for the smaller number of such signatures which were now procured.
The Bishop of Chestersaid, it might be true that some medical persons had signed the former petitions inconsiderately, but he had reason to believe that such was not the case with those who had signed the petition he now presented.
The Earl of Lauderdalerestated what had passed before the committee last

341
session, and observed, that from what the right rev. prelate now stated, he must suppose that he had examined the medical men whose signatures were attached to the petition, and had found that they had inspected the factories.
The Bishop of Chestersaid, he had been for some time at Bolton-le-Moors. He then took occasion to inquire into the character of the medical persons whose names were attached to the petition, and was perfectly satisfied with the grounds on which they had formed their opinion respecting the effects of the employment in the factories on the health of the children. The right rev. prelate then presented a petition from persons of sixteen years and upwards, employed in the cotton factories at Bollington, in the county of Chester.
The Earl of Landerdalesaid, he wished to appeal once more to the consideration of the noble lord who was desirous of promoting this inquiry, in the hope that he would be induced to postpone it. The subject was one of the highest importance, since the object of the noble lord was, to alter those principles which had hitherto governed the application of labour in this commercial country. If the noble lord seriously felt all the importance of the question, he certainly would not urge it at a time when so few members were present, but would defer his motion until a period when it was likely he might find the house in a different state.
Lord Kenyonsaid, that having already, at the request of the noble earl, postponed the motion from Friday to this day, every noble lord who was desirous of attending might be supposed to be aware that the subject would be brought forward. If the House was thin on such an occasion, it was to be presumed that it arose from the supposition that no serious opposition would be made to the motion for appointing the committee. The case was one which, in his opinion, called for expedition, and therefore he could not agree to any longer delay. As what he had to propose was merely an inquiry, similar to that which had taken place last session at the request of the noble earl, he could see no reason for postponing the motion until there should be a more numerous attendance. The committee which was instituted last session, after the bill had undergone a second reading, had left the evidence in a very imperfect state. It was his wish, that the evidence should
[342
be completed, and then the House would be able to judge of the justice and necessity of the measure he intended to propose. The only feasible objection started against proceeding with the inquiry forthwith was, that the noble earl would not be able to attend this committee. Knowing the influence which the noble earl had over the minds of others, he saw no reason to suppose that he could not, although absent himself, procure attention to his views, through the intervention of a friend. If the noble earl could not give his personal attendance in the committee, it would be some compensation that a body of evidence would be collected by its labours that would give him afterwards a more complete command of the question. There was another illustrious person (the duke of Sussex) who, he feared, would likewise be precluded from attending, as he had been last year, but whose absence, although to be regretted, would not create any delay. The noble earl on a previous night had alluded to disturbances which, in his opinion, the former agitation of the question had provoked, and had pointed out dangers which might attend its renewed discussion. These consequences he saw no reason to apprehend. By the inquiries of a committee, a body of evidence might be gained; and if, after this was laid before the house, neither duty to the individuals whose suffering it was intended to alleviate, nor regard to the welfare of the country, whose interests it was intended to promote, required the interference of parliament, the objects contemplated by the bill of last year might be finally abandoned. With respect to the evidence taken by the committee of last year, it ought to be recollected that it was all on one side. He had no doubt that the operation of that evidence, so far as it affected the bill brought in, might be rebutted by contrary evidence now obtained. No other change was last year intended than that which met the views of most humane and enlightened persons whose interests were not concerned, and which had been since carried into effect by some manufacturers, whose interests it might at first view seem to oppose. That change consisted in the limitation of the hours of labour for children, and a protection to those who, from constitutional infirmity, were unable to work the time prescribed for others. Since the subject had been last discussed in parliament, a determination had been mani-

343
fested by some of the most respectable manufacturers of Manchester to shorten the hours of labour. This fact, while it showed the justice of the principle on which the bill of last year had proceeded, afforded the strongest motive for passing it into a law; because, while no uniform enactment on the subject existed, benevolent persons, in their desire to conform to the dictates of humanity, were liable to have their views thwarted, and their example counteracted, by persons of opposite dispositions and character. He himself had, since last session, been in two cotton-mills, both belonging to most respectable individuals. The visit he made to one of them was at a favourable time of the year, but he still saw reason to convince him of the propriety of a bill to ameliorate the condition of the children, by limiting their hours of labour, and regulating the other circumstances that affected their health. In the other, the heat was so oppressive, that nothing but a sense of duty could have compelled him to remain in it, even for the short time required for its inspection; and yet, he was told by the persons there, that the door or the windows could not be opened without destroying their work. With regard to the principle involved in the bill, namely, that it would interfere between the master and those whom he employed, he could not help calling their lordships' attention to a similar measure that passed in 1802, where the principle of interference was recognized. The noble lord, after some further observations, moved for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the state of children employed in the cotton factories, with a view to the limitation of their hours of labour.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, he could not agree with the noble lord who made the motion, either in the principle of interference which he wished to establish, or in the force of the reasons which he had stated for the appointment of a committee. The noble lord had said, that it was right to appoint a committee this year, because a committee had been appointed last year; but he had not properly considered the difference of circumstances in the two periods. A committee had been appointed last year, because a bill came up from the other House, which had met there with a full discussion, but of which their lordships were ignorant; and then the question was, ought it to pass into a law without examination, or ought the House to
[344
inquire before they gave their sanction to a measure of so much importance to the country, from the principles which it involved, and the interest it might effect? The case now was wholly different: the measure had been fully discussed, and there was no necessity for the immediate inquiries of a committee, because there was no bill pending which its enquiries could effect. Leaving the question of the committee, he would make some observations on the other parts of the noble mover's speech. It was with great reluctance that he so expressed himself; but he was bound to say, and he could say it on the most mature conviction, that he could not go all the lengths of the noble lord. This was a question of the greatest national importance, and ought not to become the subject of a petty vexatious species of legislation. Nobody could go farther than he would in maintaining the maxim of our ancestors, that the fullest attention ought to be paid to the petitions of the people as against the government, and that supplies ought not to be granted till their grievances were redressed; but the case here was widely different: here we did not hear the complaints and grievances of the subject against the government, but of one part of the people against the other. The question was, therefore, one of great delicacy, and ought to be approached with the most scrupulous caution, in order that it might not be decided on principles which, while they seemed to favour the interests of one class, were detrimental in their operation to the welfare of all. The dissimilarity between apprentices to free labourers, rendered the case of the former, as brought forward by the noble lord, quite inapplicable to the present question. There was, in fact, no analogy between the situation of an apprentice, as regulated by law, and that of a free labourer, under no restriction but that of his own will; and unless in the cotton factories, a system of gross inhumanity, cruelty, and oppression could be made out against the masters, no reason could be urged why parliament should proceed to legislate. If, then, no new law was required, nothing could be more dangerous than to agitate the question, and to raise hopes which could not be realized. Nothing appeared to him more calculated to produce scenes of disturbance similar to those which agitated Manchester last Summer, than the renewal of those discussions which took place last

345
session. On this account, he was against the appointment of the proposed committee at the present moment. He had believed last year that there was more in-humanity in the treatment of children in the cotton factories, and of course a greater call for the interference of parliament, than there really existed. The noble mover had acknowledged an improvement from the very agitation of the question; and had stated, that in some cases the manufacturers had voluntarily adopted the most important regulations of the bill of last year. If this was the case, why not legislate farther: if what parliament proposed to enforce had been done spontaneously, why interfere with statutory enactments? At any rate, the legislature ought to wait to try the effect of the lessons inculcated in the discussions of last year. If the most respectable manufacturers reduced the hours of children's labour at the suggestion of their own humane minds, the majority would soon follow their example, and the object would be accomplished more effectually and more easily than by a legislative enactment. The noble lord had complained of the injurious effects of heat in cotton factories; but it was to be recollected that a sensibility to a high temperature was only relative. He (lord Grosvenor) had heard of many overseers who wished to ventilate the mills, but were prevented from doing so by requests and remonstrances on the part of the children who worked in them, and their parents. He admitted that this employment was not so healthy as that of those engaged in agriculture, but he doubted whether it could be improved by any positive regulations in which their employers did not think it their interest to concur. At any rate, the house ought to wait till the effect of a voluntary effort should be tried. If the hours of labour should be reduced, and the other provisions of last year's bill completed, there would be no necessity for farther measures. If no amelioration took place, it would be time enough to legislate after the experiment of a short delay had been tried. The noble earl concluded by proposing the adjournment of the question, to this day six weeks.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that this was indeed a very important subject, and he could not imagine either why a greater number of noble lords had not attended, or why those who were present had thought proper to withdraw. There
[346
could be no doubt that if children were by over work or harsh usage injured in their health, or distorted in their limbs, as had been attributed to the severe labour of cotton factories, their parents or masters were punishable at common law for the offence, and he had hoped that the debate would have turned upon this point, and closed with the adoption of some specific measure for the enforcement of what he would call the prohibitions of the common law. A petition had been presented that evening by a rev. prelate, which he trusted he might without offence be permitted to call a very dangerous petition, for it required the interference of parliament, not for the regulation of children only, but of adults, by which means the freedom of labour would, in his mind, be essentially affected. This was dangerous ground, and he thought it would be well to postpone the consideration of it until there was a fuller attendance. If the question were pressed, he should not give a vote, but he should be pleased, if the noble earl were to change his six weeks, to a fortnight.
Lord Kenyansaid, that he should have no objection to postpone the subject to that day sevennight.
The Earl of Lauderdaleproposed an adjournment of a fortnight. He rose, he said, to say a few words about the protection given to labourers by the law of the land. It appeared on the examination of witnesses before the committee of last year, that two factories were discovered so dirty and unhealthy, that he, with all his desire that compacts between the employer and the labourer should be free, thought that they ought to be put down. He had asked their names; then he had asked if the magistrates had not exerted, in correcting them, the powers given by sir Robert Peel's bill; but he was told that there had been no interference. Was it not, therefore, more necessary to pass an act to compel magistrates to do their duty, than to enact new laws, which, like that to which he alluded, might be allowed to remain inoperative? He was convinced that no good could be gained by the agitation of the question, while much evil might result from the false expectations which renewed discussion would excite. These false expectations, which could never be realized, were the true cause of the disturbances which disgraced Manchester last Summer. In support of this, the noble earl read an extract from the

347
evidence taken before the committee on the cotton-bill, last year, in which a Mr. Booth stated, that he had delivered to the Manchester Chronicle, and paid fifteen guineas for the insertion of an article which advocated the principle of the bill, in limiting the hours of labour as equivalent to a higher rate of wages. The noble earl concluded by asking for delay, that the manufacturers might cool a little before the further agitation of the question.
The Bishop of Chesterdid not see any reason for thinking that on a future occasion there would be a fuller attendance of members. A noble earl had argued, that there existed a connexion between the disturbances in Manchester, during last Summer, and the exertions of the petitioners; but he could assure him that there was not the least foundation for such an opinion. The imputations thrown on the petitioners were, therefore, entirely groundless. They had conducted themselves with the most perfect prudence, with the most complete submission to the laws, and in the most inoffensive manner. He had himself been asked by them, whether he would advise meetings to be called at Manchester, Bolton-le-Moors, and Stockport, for the purpose of petitioning parliament, and he advised them to call no such meetings. He warned them of the dangers that might ensue, and gave it as his opinion, that no advantage could result from such a measure. Accordingly, no meeting was called at any of those places, nor had the petitioners formed the least connexion with those who had assembled in a more riotous manner. With regard to this last fact, he did not rest merely on the circumstance he had mentioned, or the casual observation of even people well informed. Some of the rioters of Stockport were tried at Chester, and he himself had attended, for the express purpose of ascertaining whether any connexion like that stated by the noble earl really existed, and he had left the court with the conviction that there was no ground for the charge. He held in his hand an address from the petitioners, declaring that they held in abhorrence the disturbances that had disgraced Manchester and its neighbourhood last Summer. He could not help remarking, that the reason which the noble earl gave for refusing to proceed farther, was in his mind a good reason for hastening the enactment of the law. Much good had already
[348
been done by parliamentary interference; and that afforded a strong argument why parliament should go on to complete its work.
The motion was then postponed to this day fortnight.